Abstract: It is argued that Western general consciousness, in parallel with an ongoing cultural dissolution, risks moving in a “matriarchal” direction. The phenomenon represents an inroad of matriarchal consciousness into patriarchal culture, with forbidding consequences, namely the formation of a neurotic culture at a lower level of consciousness. This is unacceptable in the face of the advanced challenges of the future. The distinctive character of a culture, in terms of its cultural and psychological advancement, is a very precious thing that can give the individual the right soil to grow in, as it coincides with his/her inborn constitution. The painful questions of race and ethnicity can no longer be sidestepped. Historically, delirious racial elitism has been counterpoised by an equally unfounded homogenous view of humanity. Guided by the latest findings in human genetics, it is high time to arrive at a balanced view of ethnic diversity.
Keywords: race, matriarchal, patriarchal, heroic, psychic gradient, ethnic unconscious, symbiosis.
In this essay the much contested terms matriarchal and patriarchal are employed in an attempt to explain the different natures of civilization, also in modern times. Regardless of the obvious ethical and economical aspects of immigration, it represents an inroad of matriarchal consciousness into patriarchal culture, with forbidding consequences. The mixture of different ethnic groups plays a role in this development. It can be met by heightened awareness of the psychological diversity between ethnic groups. This would enable the individual to discover and to accept his own nature, and allow him to strike root in his own culture in a more decided way. A backside of the ongoing mingling of cultures is the lowering of the general level of consciousness, and how it more and more tends toward the matriarchal end of the spectrum. By this is implied a psychology which, for better or worse, is rooted in a collective mother complex. This will lead to a split psychology, such as decadent aspects of modern American culture, which still honours patriarchal principles of emancipation and freedom, yet allows free rein to opulence, status, power and prestige.
In order to meet the challenges of the future we ought to prevent a regress of modern consciousness and remain true to our traditional patriarchal worldview. It follows that the painful question of race can no longer be circumvented. The notion of a constitutive “gradient” (or inclination) of consciousness might help to explain the difficulties that various ethnicities encounter in trying to adapt to societies foreign to their own mentality. However, the fact that patriarchal Western culture has ruled the roost in the latest millennium does not bespeak the superiority of the “Caucasian race”. Matriarchal cultures, in historical India and Egypt, for instance, were once in the forefront. In history, the tables are always turning. However, there is little agreement as to the meaning of patriarchal and matriarchal. Encyclopædia Britannica defines matriarchy:
Matriarchy: hypothetical social system in which the mother or a female elder has absolute authority over the family group; by extension, one or more women (as in a council) exert a similar level of authority over the community as a whole.
Under the influence of Charles Darwin’s theories of biological evolution, many 19th-century scholars sought to formulate a theory of cultural evolution. The theory known as unilineal cultural evolution, now discredited, suggested that human social organization “evolved” through a series of stages: animalistic sexual promiscuity was followed by matriarchy, which was in turn followed by patriarchy. The American anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan, the Swiss anthropologist J.J. Bachofen, and the German philosopher Friedrich Engels were particularly important in developing this theory.
The consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that while many cultures bestow power preferentially on one sex or the other, matriarchal societies in this original, evolutionary sense have never existed. However, some scholars continue to use the terms matriarchy and patriarchy in the general sense for descriptive, analytical, and pedagogical purposes. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2012).
I make use of the term ‘matriarchal’ from a psychological point of view. Historically, the authority in society has for the most part been accorded men. Yet, what distinguishes historical matriarchal societies is that a feminine deity, the mother goddess, has ascended to the most prominent position in the divine pantheon. It means that the feminine principle, the mother complex, is in ascendancy. A society which, on the surface, is mostly ruled by men could still be under the rule of the feminine principle. A good example of this is the Minoan civilization on Crete. The Minoans seem to have worshipped primarily goddesses, which accounts for the relatively high status of women in society. Religion was matriarchal, but this does not mean that society was sexually egalitarian. Nor was Minoan civilization pacifistic. Cynthia Eller says about matriarchal religious customs:
[More troublesome] is the fact that goddesses are often known to support patriarchal social customs. Goddesses may have nothing whatsoever to do with women’s religious needs, representing instead men’s fantasies of ‘the Eternal Mother, the devoted mate, the loving mistress,’ or even the fearful nature of women’s power. (Eller, 2001, p.104)
Anthropologists and feminists tend to look at
the outer relations, that is, whether it’s matrilineal, factually ruled by
women, etc. What they fail to appreciate is that society can be ruled
by the “woman in the unconscious”, namely Magna Mater.
Human evolution and epigenetics
The diversity of mankind is coming to light in the science of genetics: “There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better…” (Harmon, 2007, here).
A revolutionary paradigm shift is undergoing in genetical science. It is called epigenetics. The term “epigenetic” refers to heritable traits that do not involve changes to the DNA sequence. The DNA sequence is only part of the genome. The rest, which was earlier viewed as redundant rubbish, is now termed epigenome. Some epigenetic features are inherited from one generation to the next. Multigenerational epigenetics is today regarded as another aspect to evolution and adaptation. An example of this is the paramutation observed in maize. In humans, epigenetic changes have been observed to occur in response to environmental exposure, that is, a form of Lamarckian inheritance (vid. Pembrey et al., 2006).
This is a remarkable turnover in favour of depth psychology, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Despite the controversy over his ideas, Freud refused to cede with his “Lamarckian” notions. Jung also received much critique for his idea that the collective unconscious has acquired traits over the millennia. Genetics has been regarded a much slower process. For instance, in Jung, an important argument is that man’s experiences during medieval time affect us strongly today, and is the foundation on which we stand as modern people. The medieval world, and classical antiquity, is part of our unconscious. However, other ethnic groups, such as African peoples, lack this layer, says Jung. Other people still, such as the Chinese, have a different configuration of the collective unconscious, although the foundational layer is the same for all people on earth. The cultural forging of our unconscious nature is crucial to Jung’s theory of archetypes. The young science of epigenetics would be able to corroborate such notions. Not only climatological, epidemic, and nutritive experiences can be transferred to coming generations. Culture is the most fundamental force that has shaped man’s life through the aeons. In all likelihood, it effects the genome in a few generations.
The even greater surprise is the recent discovery that epigenetic signals from the environment can be passed on from one generation to the next, sometimes for several generations, without changing a single gene sequence. It’s well established, of course, that environmental effects like radiation, which alter the genetic sequences in a sex cell’s DNA, can leave a mark on subsequent generations. Likewise, it’s known that the environment in a mother’s womb can alter the development of a fetus. What’s eye-opening is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the epigenetic changes wrought by one’s diet, behavior, or surroundings can work their way into the germ line and echo far into the future. Put simply, and as bizarre as it may sound, what you eat or smoke today could affect the health and behavior of your great-grandchildren (Watters, 2006, here).
The concept implies that genes have a ‘memory’; what you do in your lifetime, and what you are exposed to, could in turn affect your grandchildren. Epigenetics postulates a control system of ‘switches’ that turn genes on or off. The things that people experience, like nutrition and stress, can control these switches and cause heritable effects in humans. The switches themselves can also be inherited. This means that a ‘memory’ of an event could be passed on through generations. A simple environmental effect could switch genes on or off, and this change could be inherited. According to the above article in Discover magazine “the epigenome can change in response to the environment throughout an individual’s lifetime”. Therefore, I propose that culture is very likely to play a role. The notion that factors of epigenetics could determine a person toward the animation of certain archetypes is consonant with this. I theorize that the individual could become more warlike in cultures which have historically been involved in conflict. The article continues:
Remarkably, the mother’s licking activity had the effect of removing dimmer switches on a gene that shapes stress receptors in the pup’s growing brain. The well-licked rats had better-developed hippocampi and released less of the stress hormone cortisol, making them calmer when startled. In contrast, the neglected pups released much more cortisol, had less-developed hippocampi, and reacted nervously when startled or in new surroundings. Through a simple maternal behavior, these mother rats were literally shaping the brains of their offspring. (ibid.)
Apparently, the psyche of the rat is altered by an epigenetic switch,
which can be turned on at will by the mother. In light of this, it’s not
far-fetched to propose that certain ethnicities, partly due to epigenetic
factors, can become more heroic and ambitious, while others will tend toward the
matriarchal spectrum. In the field of traditional genetics, too, new facts have
surfaced that question old preconceptions. According to recent findings (cf. Dunham
human evolution has been moving at breakneck speed in the past several thousand
years. Today, we are quite different from people living a few thousand years
ago. The new findings also show that the human genome on the different
continents have diverged and continue to do so. Although this research is still
in its infancy, it seems to corroborate notions of constitutive racial
differences, and the breakneck speed in which they develop.
Furthermore, in a process called ‘biased gene conversion’, there is an increase in the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful (cf. ScienceDaily, 2009, here). Factors of accelerated genetic evolution, factors of epigenetics, rapid cultural and dietary changes, and local ethnic interbreeding, all contribute to the rapid establishment of new ethnoracial characteristics. Yet, it seems today that we are bound by an unfounded homogenous view of humanity, and that our present view of cultural and genetical evolution implies a resignation to fate. In the light of the recent findings, it’s becoming more and more obvious that humanity must start cultivating its character and put greater emphasis on aspects of heredity.
The issue of race
The recent progress in genetics has ramifications in the area of racial and ethnic diversity. Intellectual people have an extraordinary distaste for notions of racial characteristics, because it brings with it a bad historical odour, and it reminds Americans of the racial laws. But returning to the issue of race will not cause a rebound to race laws. In point of fact, the greater plasticity of hereditary traits, and the acceleration of human evolution, implies that the biological divergence of races must be regarded an ongoing reality, but it also means that elitist notions are passé. Race is not such a fixed category as Alfred Rosenberg thought, nor is a certain race predestined to success, thanks to a fixed set of ancient genes. Paradoxically, this means that we are finally relieved of the fanatical forms of hereditarian elitism. C.G. Jung, discussing the race issue, says:
The resistances of the white man in Africa to “go black”, or “native” as he put it, produced so powerful an undertow in his spirit that it caused tensions which were almost unendurable. These either caused him to succumb, or to reject and hate the dark man who had served to evoke these tensions… [the] farther man grew from his instinctive self the more intense was the rejection in the European that we call prejudice and hatred… The Protestant rule was the product of a more exclusively rationalist development which cut man off more from his natural self. But either way, it was an evasion because the task of modern man was not to “go primitive” in the African way. (Post, pp.53-54)
What is causing this fear of “going black?” What is
implied by the relative inability of black men, and other ethnicities, to
adapt to Western culture? It could be viewed in terms of a psychic gradient.
Broadly speaking, there is in the “white” culture a strife toward
higher accomplishment; an advancement of consciousness; a movement of
emancipation. But among certain ethnic groups one can detect a general
movement toward the other end, namely to belong in an unconscious community and
to swim with the tide. I hold that the psychic gradients go in different
directions. In traditional psychological terms we can, with regard to certain ethnic
groups, speak of a collective mother complex, i.e., a constitutive
psychological dependency that gears them toward collective adjustment, whether
it involves the small group or the overarching society. This overall tendency is
weaker among other ethnic groups, where the individual has an incentive for
A case in point are the ancient Egyptians who wanted to remain in the warm embrace of the unconscious, where life was regulated according to Maat, the eternal universal law, and everything was cyclically created anew. In later civilizations where emancipation of consciousness is the underlying motif, we have abandoned cyclical time and adopted finite linear time. A Swedish journalist related how she gave an expensive watch to a helpful Egyptian young man, who immediately threw the clock out of sight in anger. He wanted to remain unknowing of time, and, as far as possible, live in the embrace of the unconscious. Rural people in India are the same; they do not want to advance their consciousness. They entertain their polytheistic cult that serves the purpose of remaining in a blissful state of unconsciousness. They have no wish to kill their gods by becoming conscious of the archetypes which they stand for. Instead they elevate them in worship. Comparatively, our white culture will always tend to disrupt the gradient toward unconsciousness. I, as a white man, would tend to challenge, to question, to disrupt any attempts toward accomplishing a “steady state” of consciousness, i.e., a mind at comfortable rest, as it were. The notion of “democracy”, in itself, demands of its practitioners that they develop their consciousness in continual conflict. However, people at the other end of the spectrum prefer a universe which is delineated from the beginning, like the ancient Egyptian concept of Maat; the primordial divine law.
In this context, emancipation would be understood as a psychological process. A psychologically emancipated person can think what he likes, and may employ psychic energy in any way he/she wants, with little regard for what other people think. Thus, it does not concern economical emancipation and education, etc., although there is certainly a connection. The gradient of consciousness, its directionality, might be a powerful factor in causing segregation, and might explain why some ethnicities have difficulties blending in with society. A matriarchal consciousness, as a characteristic gradient of consciousness, is not appropriate for a Western European patriarchal culture. Hence a particular individual, an immigrant possibly, will tend not to individuate, but remain in a psychological backwater. Had he lived in a traditional environment, suitable for his psychological makeup, he could individuate according to the premises of that culture. It’s a different form of individuation, but he will come to maturity. An important difference between the patriarchal and matriarchal cultures is the level of differentiation in the psychological functions of eros and logos. Marie-Louise von Franz says:
Man in our civilization is ahead of woman in the civilizing process. In South India, the humanizing of woman, and of eros, seems to be ahead of the West. There women are proud of their femininity, and there is a more differentiated attitude to eros. In the West, there is toughness, vulgarity, and lack of differentiation of the eros level, and far greater logos differentiation than in the East (1993, p.26).
The previous account rhymes with notions of a racial or ethnic unconscious. It’s true that C.G. Jung, when discussing the collective unconscious, does not want to talk of “race-specific contents”. However, there is in Jungian psychology a notion of a “cultural complex” which originates with Jung’s early work on complex theory, and his discussion of ethnic and racial psychological characteristics. Jungians have always subscribed to the notion of a “group unconscious” and even speak of it at the family level. When a child has problems, it might really derive from the family unconscious. The child cannot be cured if the family isn’t cured. Likewise, an ethnic group can be possessed by an ethnic complex. The average individual is to a great extent a collective being. Whereas he is an individual in his conscious domain (and must be respected for that), in his unconscious he remains largely a collective being. Therefore, an individual cannot only be analysed as an isolated entity, but it becomes necessary to look for a sickness in the collective; possibly a cultural complex.
A certain cultural complex, which is helpful for adaptation in the social context of a particular indigenous culture, might become an impediment if the same person migrates to another culture (or that culture migrates to him). His cultural complex could then become a factor of neurosis. It is becoming more and more obvious that cultural complexes are more “hardwired” than we earlier thought. Joseph Henderson, a colleague of Jung’s, discussed the notion of a “cultural unconscious”, which he introduced in an address at the 2nd International Jungian Congress in Zürich in 1962 (vid. Singer 2002). This idea has received much attention lately in the Jungian world (cf. Singer, 2004, here). Henderson situates the cultural unconscious topographically between the collective unconscious and the personal unconscious. Michael Vannoy Adams has his own take on this: “I redefine the ‘collective unconscious’, it comprises not only archetypal factors but also stereotypical factors, which include apparently ‘racial’ factors (collective attitudes and behaviors that are really ethnic factors)” (Adams, 1996). He has criticized the negligent attitude of the human and social sciences to ethnoracial issues from a perspective of the collective unconscious.
An heroic consciousness
The way in which white African farmers have portrayed the black workers serves to illustrate a certain “gradient of consciousness”. Farmers typically characterize them as good men and women, who work during the day, and then sit down by the fire at nights, telling stories and having a good time. But they just don’t seem to have any aspirations in life; they are somehow lacking in ambition. Compare with the hitherto typical Westerner, who tends not to be lacking in ambition, even if he has little schooling. At least he intends to start some business in car repair, for instance. It seems like they have an “upward gradient” of consciousness, whereas many an African has a supremely gifted talent at “feeling good in his neighbourhood”, even if nothing essential happens during his entire life. It is wholly logical. The social consequences are painful enough for the ambitious individual who attempts to break lose from collective identification.
I have also noted that, among Africans, Arabs, Syrians, and other ethnic groups, there is a strong tendency to keep to themselves, to socialize with people who look like themselves. Certain ethnic groups tend to put much emphasis on the microsocial perspective, and the individual is to a great extent carried by the collective. This social principle could be explained psychologically by a “leveled gradient”, which implies that there is no impetus toward individual emancipation. The foremost principle is instead to be carried by the collective, as opposed to having ambitions and to journey somewhere in life. In my country, when white kids are put into a major school, they seem to adjust to ethnic variety, while the black kids, and other foreign ethnicities, tend to bunch up and surround themselves with familiar faces. They have a higher level of anxiety, and they more often react with fear and aggression. The situation in the U.S. seems to be very similar. It seems like the “tribal consciousness” is more pronounced. The individual and the tribe are one. Comparatively, Western culture is more “heroic”. It reflects on the achievement and the emancipation of the individual, which, in a Hollywood film, also proves to be of great benefit for the community. Compare the centrality of the hero myth in historical Western society versus African society.
What, then, are the consequences, if “heroic” European consciousness becomes allayed in a cultural melting pot where racial and social amalgamation takes place? The level of consciousness of a people is the foundation of the cultural region. Beethoven, Matísse, Edison and Einstein have all managed to evolve their inner talent because Western culture is, at its core, supportive of individual emancipation and growth. By comparison, Islamic cultures tend to be paternalistic, not patriarchal, while behind the façade the motherly principle rules. Everything tends to revolve around the ideal of the Mother, including the motherly boons of safety, nourishment, and comfort. There is no marked heroism in such cultures.
How does our occidental humanism compare with the non-reflective and more encompassing culture of Islam? Would the named individuals have been able to flourish in the Islamic circle? Instead of resorting to crude concepts of racial superiority, I have proposed that the accomplishments of successful individuals partly depends on our ways of individual emancipation, our “hero cult”, a cultural factor which also has taken root in the genome of the general Westerner. The creative Western individual is heroic in the sense that he strives to become a true individual capable of choosing his own path, something which releases creativity from inside. However, while the emancipated person embraces true individuality, he also becomes problematic. He is not given to an African outlook of “feeling good among one’s neighbours”. This is borne out by the biographical record.
Ethnic differences dispose people toward different societal systems. Some ethnicities will find it hard to comply with, and feel that they belong in, our Western patriarchal and heroic culture. The homogenous view of humanity adopted by politicians and columnists flies in the face of empirical facts. The average member of a certain ethnic group can only do himself justice in a culture that recognizes his constitutive capabilities. As long as culture encourages it, one can grow to maturity according to the constitutive premises.
A gradient toward individual accomplishment, perhaps triggered by epigenetic or evolutionary factors, could play a role in socialization. Certain ethnic groups would fare better in a collective project, where his intelligence and zest awakens. The Copts, today living in Egypt, are the descendants of the pyramid builders, something which many Westerners find it hard to perceive. In the historical perspective, I have no illusions of “racial superiority”. Comparatively, where were we Europeans at 1500 BC, when the Olmecs started building impressive cities in Central America? The Olmecs had a written language, and the oldest written artefact yet found, a stone tablet, is from about 900 BC. Over the centuries tables are turning. In a millennium or two Western culture could again be in demise.
I put forth that those ethnicities that are deficient in an emancipative sense would do themselves much better justice in a matriarchal culture, a modern equivalent of pre-Columbian Central America, where people were enveloped by society on all sides. Those societies were constituted like a great Mother goddess — an advanced collective thought-process, as it were. The intelligence of the Toltec, Maya, Aztec, etc., comes to expression in their vast knowledge about mathematics (they knew about the zero), astronomical exactitude, and their architectural achievements. By comparison, our modern patriarchal societies do not envelop the individual, but instead expect initiative and commitment from him or her. Advancement depends to a higher degree on the individual. An emancipative type of consciousness in the general population will give rise to a patriarchal culture. If this is correct, then culture is, to a higher degree than expected, determined from within, and not only from environmental factors.
The conclusion is that certain ethnicities, due to divergent unconscious structure, would fare much better in a society that honours matriarchal principles. Accordingly, the building of an African civilization according to Western patriarchal principles would be counterproductive. The result is only discouraging. Society as a collective, as well as the individual citizen, are rendered impotent and deprived of vitality. By way of illustration, a matriarchal consciousness could be likened to the moonlit night, when things appear blurred. A patriarchal consciousness, on the other hand, is like a bright cone of light. It sees all the details, but outside the cone everything is black, due to the contrast effect. This makes it smaller in scope, yet more precise, something which finely illustrates the scientific mind.
An ongoing regress
In ancient cultures, such as the Maya and the Egyptian, the leading principle was the material and the tangible, such as worldliness, prosperity, beauty, social status, etc. This is reinforced by matriarchal consciousness itself, since it naïvely experiences that matter is spirit, too, or at least nearly so. In ancient Egypt the corpse, after having been turned into a mummy, was also the god Osiris. What we moderns view as the most revolting material object was actually the highest spirit. Luxuriousness and well-being were the ideals, because this life was simultaneously a life in the spirit. There is a crux. In order to maintain a matriarchal frame of mind, it necessitates a low level of consciousness, a constitutive naïveté which allows the subject to actually find meaning in his worldly endeavours, collecting riches and objects of status, such as a beautiful house, etc. The worldly thing is spirit to the individual. To modern patriarchal consciousness, on the other hand, that naïveté has become lost. At this level, it makes no sense to waste your life chasing after glistening “glass pearls”, in whatever form.
I have argued that the tendency toward an archaic level of consciousness not only depends on endemic genetic makeup, but also on the purely psychological tendency of “going black”. Americans, as a case in point, make a curious impression, because they seem so engulfed in matters of success and material wealth that they more and more make the appearance of an ancient matriarchal culture. Today, in the U.S., the Christian prosperity movement preaches wealth and opulence as central goal of a life in the spirit: “Jesus wants you to be rich [and the] word of God is the gateway to the world of wealth” (CNN, 2006, here). According to TIME magazine, 61 percent of Christian Americans believe God wants people to be financially prosperous (cf. Biema & Chu, 2006, here). Similar to aboriginal peoples Americans have this strong penchant for anything that sparkles; anything which endows its owner with status, whether it’s titles, big cars, Nobel prize medals, or maybe even a more splendid barbecue than the neighbour. Many Americans, like the aborigines, still put great value in “glass pearls”, as it were.
Most revealingly, it is becoming more common among Americans to believe that a rich person is morally better than a poor person, and that the latter deserves no better. This is an unmistakable sign of an encroaching matriarchal awareness, since it employs essentialistic social hierarchies, as exemplified by the ancient Minoans. The Cretans, for instance, thought that if a person was prosperous and handsome, then he had greater value than other people, because the gods smiled at him. So the prosperous man is being taken care of by a good Mother, which is his matriarchal universe. Thus he remains a privileged child, retaining an undeveloped personal morale. In this way the regress to relative unconsciousness brings with it the ambivalent and amoral qualities of the unconscious.
The ongoing backslide to a matriarchal level of consciousness is an ominous sign. A collective consciousness on the downgrade combined with a highly technological civilization is not a reassuring combination, especially not in the face of today’s religio-political and climatological crisis. The average individual cannot easily gear down and make less demands on opulence and well-being, something that will have destructive environmental consequences. Due to his constitutive naïveté he might be practically unable, like a child, to see factual problems beyond the horizon. In fact, only the visible is regarded as real. The weak consciousness of the ego creates the danger of being overhauled by a collective unconscious phantasmagoria.
The patriarchal conception
The patriarchal conception originated with the formulation of monotheism, and reached a peak with Plato, Jesus, and St Paul. According to patriarchal thinkers, it’s not the visible and tangible which is the leading principle. Rather, it is the invisible life in the spirit which means something. What really counts are the properties that transcend the world. Plato declared the equality of women, despite the fact that they appeared to be the weaker sex. In the ideal state, he said, women would take up 250 seats of 500 in the parliament. It would have caused a raised eyebrow among many a fellow philosopher. St Paul reasons in a similar fashion. Because it is invisible nature that counts: “[There] is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 03:28). Consequently, the poor man has equal status before God as the rich man, and this is what underlies today’s egalitarian principles in Western society. According to the patriarchal conception, the poor man has even better chances of passing through the “needle’s eye”, since he is not being exposed to corruption by money and societal status. This is emphasized by Jesus when he says, “many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first” (Mat. 19:30).
This is the advanced thoughtway that Western civilization is now receding from. The principle of equality of all men (that we are spiritually of equal value) comes to expression in equality in legal proceedings, medical treatment, etc. Americans, especially, have more and more come to sidestep the patriarchal principle, which represents a tremendous achievement by medieval man. It gradually took root in the souls of people, and not only in institutions and roman law. Today, the matriarchal regress undergoing in modern man generates compensations from the unconscious, as in the following dream of a forty-five year old woman:
I entered my house toward evening. The entry hall was empty, without furniture; there was only the bare floor. On it, lying on a pile of straw, was a shabbily clothed man who looked like a tramp. I knew it was Christ. He shone with the whitest dazzling light, for his body was made out of glowing-hot metal! Smiling, he said to me, “You could do me a favor. Take a bowl full of water and poor it over me to damp down my radiance.” I carried out his wish, and the water steamed from him with a hiss. Now his body was made of dark metal, but very limber and alive. He said with a smile, “Thank you.” (von Franz, 1999, pp.72-73)
Europe goes through a radical change of culture. Traditional patriarchal culture elevates personal capacity and independence as ideals. A transition to matriarchy is now underway, when people turn to the symbiotic ideal. In order to achieve symbiosis it is necessary to drive away those people that stand out from the group. This will achieve homogeneity, when all people are constituent parts of one and the same collective psyche. Hence there are only two alternatives: (1) symbiosis or (2) expulsion. This means that mobbing at workplaces and schools will continue to increase, and there exist no therapeutic methods to prevent it. Comparatively, an ideal patriarchal society fosters psychologically independent individuals, and mobbing is therefore a minor problem. Indeed, each and every one is a deviant on account of their individual nature.
A true individual keeps other people at arm’s length. This is essential to be able to relate, in the true sense of the word. However, the symbiotic ideal (which can be likened to the mother’s symbiosis with the child) destroys all possibilities of relatedness proper, as it leads to the merger of psyches. Note that certain immigrant ethnicities, especially Africans, often experience Europeans as cold and rejecting. Unlike Western Europeans, they are symbiotic by nature, having their roots in the matriarchal cultural circle. It’s not possible to repair this split other than through a regressive turn in the European population, which will become symbiotic, too. A matriarchal regress must needs lead to catastrophic consequences for our civilization. It will not only bring the demise of many individuals through mobbing and expulsion, but our psychological independence and enterprising spirit will wither away. Already today, employers complain at the lack of moral competence among the youth. This is a consequence of the Mother Society — the Likeness Society.
I have argued that immigration, together with degenerative factors in Western culture, forces society toward the matriarchal end of the spectrum. By this is implied a collective psychology which is rooted in a collective mother complex, where the male is often unconsciously identified with the “Mother’s phallus” (a notion that derives from world mythology and from Freud). The “phallic personality” is a well-researched theme in psychoanalytic literature. Among certain ethnic groups, phallocentrism has emerged as a step on the ladder in the evolution of consciousness. The phallic personality tends to be reckless, prideful, and narcissistic, prone to violence and intimidation. The phallic individual compensates his motherly tie by adopting an aggressive persona, trying to appear as the powerful man which he is not — he personifies merely the phallus of the Mother. It gives rise to the well-known machismo personality, which could also be called the male chauvinist type.
Although this personality structure appears among all ethnicities, it is more common among certain ethnic groups. Such cultures, due to their phallocentrism, are often branded as “patriarchal”. But underneath the phallic personality hides the mother complex. This is the reason why I regard it a veiled form of matriarchy. Phallocentrism is veiled matriarchy. As ethnicities at this cultural level are now migrating to Western Europe and North America, an understanding of the psychological determinants is becoming more acute. Today, we often read headlines about criminality or domestic violence among immigrants, such as honour killings and gang criminality. I contend that this phenomenon is strongly predicated on the “phallic” bias of immigrant ethnicities. Although it is regularly understood as frustration deriving from being an outsider in society, these antagonistic feelings are amplified in the phallic-narcissistic individual.
In the present time, we are falling away from the conquests of original Western consciousness and acculturation. This is a process that must be stemmed, otherwise future will strike back with a vengeance. Diplomacy and politics, alone, cannot solve the problems of the world. A high level of consciousness must be revitalized and maintained in the general population. Today’s upsurge of matriarchal reasoning ought to be resisted and criticised. After all, responsibility for the world cannot be entrusted to a people at an archaic level of consciousness. It is necessary to relieve the general Westerner of his empty materialistic aspirations. He needs to gear down, and begin to “think small”, not the least for environmental reasons. If our beautiful earth is going to survive, as is often argued, we are dependent on advanced technology including the hard sciences. However, a conscious regress would be detrimental to science and engineering. Therefore, a more urgent question is the collective level of consciousness. A better understanding of the constitutive nature of mankind, including the wisdom of the unconscious, are very important for maintaining a high level of consciousness.
Much of this boils down to morality. How is a people who is stuck in an adolescent stage going to take responsibility for the world, such as the urgent matter of global warming, for instance? So where does the general Westerner stand today, in terms of conscious level and grade of maturity? This is a cause for concern. The difficulties created by the mingling of cultures give rise to overcompensations in the form of a naïve belief in the boons of a multicultural society. Among the politically correct, there is a puritanical unwillingness to confront the issue. Due to an unconscious dissonance in society, an indigenous evil risks growing stronger and stronger, while the assurances that we are on the right path become more and more zealous and one-eyed. But it’s only the well-known tactics of the ostrich, namely to bury one’s head in the sand.
© Mats Winther, Jan 2008 (augmented 2015).
Adams, M.V. (1996). The Multicultural Imagination: “Race”, Color, and the Unconscious. London and New York: Routledge.
Biema, D. van & Chu, J. (2006). ‘Does God Want You To Be Rich?’ TIME magazine, Sep. 10, 2006. (here)
‘CNN: American Morning’. Aired September 26, 2006, 08:59 ET. (here)
Dunham, W. (2007). ‘Rapid acceleration in human evolution described’. Reuters, Mon Dec 10, 2007. (here)
Eller, C. (2001). The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won’t Give Women a Future. Beacon Press.
Franz, M-L von (1993). The Feminine in Fairy Tales. Shambala. (orig. publ. 1972.)
-------- (1999). Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche. Shambhala.
Harmon, A. (2007). ‘In DNA Era, New Worries About Prejudice’. New York Times. Nov. 11, 2007. (here)
‘Matriarchy’. (2012). Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
‘Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?’. ScienceDaily. (here)
Singer, T. (2002). ‘The Cultural Complex and Archetypal Defenses of the Collective Spirit’. The San Francisco Jung Institute Library Journal. Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002 pp.5-28. (here)
-------- (2004). The Cultural Complex: Contemporary Jungian Perspectives on Psyche and Society. Brunner-Routledge.
Pembrey ME & Bygren, L.O. & Kaati, G. et al. (2006). ‘Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in humans’. Eur J Hum Genet. 2006 Feb;14(2):131-2. (abstract here)
Post, L. van der. (1978). Jung and the Story of Our Time. Penguin Books.
Watters, E. (2006). ‘DNA Is Not Destiny. The new science of epigenetics rewrites the rules of disease, heredity, and identity’. DISCOVER magazine 11.22.2006. (here)
‘Cultural differences may leave their mark on DNA’. ScienceDaily, 10 January 2017. (here)
Dimitrova S. ‘The New Image of the Self in a Multicultural Perspective’. (here)
Struening, F. (2009). ‘Danish Psychologist: “Integration of Muslims in Western Societies is not possible”’. EuropeNews. March 31, 2009 (here)
‘Matriarchy’. Wikipedia article. (here)
‘Matriarchal religion’. Wikipedia article. (here)
Winther, M. (2010). ‘Insights into the Race Issue’. (here)
-------- (2009). ‘Symbolic Poverty’. (here)
-------- (2010). ‘Critique of Feminism’. (here)